Drug convictions tossed over suspicionless search

Although caught by Tippecanoe County Community Corrections with his ex-wife in the attic and drugs in the basement, a man had his convictions overturned after the Indiana Court of Appeals determined his consent to warrantless searches did not include suspicionless searches.   

Two community corrections officers went to James Jarman’s house in March 2015 on a tip that his ex-wife was living at the residence and that he had been drinking and possibly abusing his Adderall medication. The officers found Jarman’s ex-wife in the attic of the house and “a knotted baggie containing an unknown white powdery substance” in his pocket. Using a key Jarman gave to them to a locked cabinet in the basement, the officers discovered “methamphetamine, several bags of a green, leafy substance (that was not marijuana), a synthetic urine kit, two handwritten ledgers, stamp baggies, a cut straw, a scale, and a glass smoking device.”

At an ensuing bench trial, Jarman moved to suppress all the evidence on the grounds that the search violated his Fourth Amendment protections against searches and seizures. The state countered that Jarman had signed an agreement waiving his Fourth Amendment rights as a condition of admission to community corrections.

The Tippecanoe Superior Court was convinced and denied motion to suppress. The trial court subsequently found Jarmon guilty of possession of methamphetamine, dealing in a synthetic drug or synthetic drug lookalike substance and possession of paraphernalia. He was sentenced to four years, with two years to be served in community corrections.

The Court of Appeals, however, reversed Jarman’s convictions in James E. Jarman v. State of Indiana, 18A-CR-1034.

Before the appellate panel, Jarman argued his consent to searches without probable cause did not mean he also consented to suspicionless searches. The state responded that Jarman gave his consent when he agreed to the community corrections rules.

The unanimous Court of Appeals agreed, ruling that even though Jarman signed the waiver that allowed searches “without a warrant and without a probable cause,” that did not “unambiguously authorize” suspicionless searches.

“Given this well-established distinction between ‘probable cause’ and lesser degrees of suspicion, the statement ‘I agree to a search without probable cause’ does not unambiguously mean ‘I agree to a search without reasonable suspicion,’” Chief Judge Nancy Vaidik wrote for the court. “If the State wanted Jarman to be subject to suspicionlesss searches as a condition of entering community corrections, it should have included in its waiver form language like ‘without suspicion,’ or ‘without reasonable suspicion,’ ‘without reasonable cause,’ or ‘without cause.’”

In a footnote at the end of the opinion, the Court of Appeals hinted that the state missed an opportunity to possibly get the conviction affirmed. The appellate court noted the Indiana’s brief cited United States v. Robinson, 414 U.S. 218, 235 (1973) which held that a search of a person lawfully arrested is an exception to the Fourth Amendment. 

However, the Court of Appeals pointed out, the argument could not be considered because it was not fully explored as required by Indiana Appellate Rule 46(A)(8)(a).

“To the extent the State meant to suggest that the search of Jarman fell within the search-incident-to arrest exception to the warrant requirement, it waived the issue by failing to develop a cogent argument,” Vaidik wrote. “…In the sentence following the citation to Robinson, the State returned to its argument that Jarman ‘waived’ the protection of the Fourth Amendment in order ‘to participate in community corrections.’”